Rachel Scott’s piercing interview at National Association of Black Journalists event left former president fuming

ABC News’s senior congressional correspondent Rachel Scott has reportedly faced threats to her life after her piercing interview of Donald Trump at the National Association of Black Journalists convention left the former president fuming.

The NABJ’s executive director told members at a meeting on Saturday that “Scott had received death threats following her work asking incisive questions of … Trump at the group’s national convention” three days earlier, Eric Deggans of National Public Radio wrote in an X post published Saturday.

…

Scott asked Trump on Wednesday, “Why should Black voters trust you?” given his history of inflammatory comments about Black people. Among other questions, she also quizzed him about whether he believed Vice-President Kamala Harris had risen to the top of the Democratic ticket for November’s White House election solely “because she is a Black woman”.

  • @[email protected]
    2•4 months ago

    How?

    Good question. I said should, not could… it would take a constitutional change, which is currently impossible. I used to think a lot about this, and there just is no law that wouldn’t get stricken down if passed.

    Bring back the old literacy tests while you’re at it

    Pfft. The two are not the same. You could be perfectly illiterate and still find out what the supposed values of the politicians were by simply listening to them, or just talking to others about policy and politicians ties to them, like we used to.

    They aren’t? If yes how would that change?

    The Hatch Act applies to all career federal civil servants and prevents anyone under that designation from running from office in any partisan race. Meaning if your local government doesn’t allow political affiliations to be listed, then you can run for dog catcher or school committee or whatever. Non-partisan local elections used to be the norm, now they are exceptionally rare. Forcing every election to be non-partisan opens up a bunch of likely trustworthy people to be able participate in politics through running for offices.

    • @[email protected]
      1•4 months ago

      How?

      Good question. I said should, not could… it would take a constitutional change, […]

      I mean: if you had the power, how would you ban parties? At what point do political organizations become parties? How about individual representatives working together?

      Bring back the old literacy tests while you’re at it

      Pfft. The two are not the same. You could be perfectly illiterate and still find out what the supposed values of the politicians were by simply listening to them, or just talking to others about policy and politicians ties to them, like we used to.

      Yes literacy is not the deciding factor, but it was always a pretense to keep certain people from voting.

      Imagine how much more attention you would have yo pay if you had to understand who to vote for.

      How much time should a person spend following politics to get enough of an understanding? What about poor people working long hours with little free time?
      Guess I should have gone with the landowning requirement instead.

      The Hatch Act applies to all career federal civil servants and prevents anyone under that designation from running from office in any partisan race. Meaning if your local government doesn’t allow political affiliations to be listed, then you

      Sound like a problem with the Hatch Act, not with political parties. Over here civil servant can run in political races as long they separate their work and political live, they are not allowed to wear uniforms at political events for example.